That has to be the most comments a single post on Integrity has ever received! Ironically, this is the very type of back and forth exchange that I longed for when I began this blog so many years ago to reflect on the exhortation, Christifideles Laici. Who knew it just would take the bearing of my soul to lead to it.
A bit more context -- my "fraternity" group (quotes only in the sense that I am not a member of the Fraternity, but the experience I do not doubt strives for what is desired from Fraternity) met tonight at my place to judge our experiences of the Diaconia. It was important for me that we kept to our meeting and I, truthfully, never thought of canceling because of my experience at the Diaconia. I needed not only their help in judging my experience, but I wanted to hear of theirs -- to glimpse what they saw. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that, among us, we had the two ends of the spectrum of experiencing the Diaconia.
I'm not going to say that I have in one evening unlocked what I was meant to learn from this weekend. But some things have been identified or have been helpful. First, the reaction of a number (both here and in person) that indicated my reaction to my first Diaconia wasn't an unrecognizable experience. That others recognize it is comforting -- I don't stand alone in this experience; the Movement (as represented by each of you) isn't unaware that this experience happens (which believe me, is an important element of self-awareness to me); people stayed despite this experience.
And I am staying despite this experience. One could say that is my CL experience. After seeking the movement out at an event where CL had a booth and having none of my questions answered adequately (ironically, by another member of my fraternity, whose answers are now so much clearer and helpful to me), I nonetheless signed up for more information. When I was never contacted, I then re-contacted CL. When I attended my first CL event and had a very mixed experience, I still agreed to attend a SofC weeks later. When that experience left me fleeing for the hills, I ultimately came back the next chance I could to give SofC another try. Staying I think can fairly characterize how I have reacted to CL so far.
The proposal of CL, that Christ is present in every moment, provokes me. It challenges me because I want that to be something I experience, not just recognize intellectually. I've had some very powerful moments, supernatural moments if someone will give my judgment of the matter credence, where I do not doubt, in the moment or now, that Christ was active. Those moments are like beacons for me. Memories in that truest sense of the word that Giussani uses. These are the moments to which I compare my experiences. These are the moments that I use to try and verify when I say that Christ is present in some event or thing, because these are the moments where I know He was present. I do wonder if at times it leads me to erroneous judgments -- to mistake "accidents" of those vivid moments for the "essence". But, assuming the answer to that is "not entirely", I cannot verify the many "This is Christ" type recognitions I hear people in CL make about ordinary events of their lives. And I steadfastly refuse to rationalize -- meaning, I want to truly see Christ present in those moments, not just be words that I slap onto my experience. If those moments where I truly cannot say I see Him are meant to provoke me to recognize more fully my need and desire for Him, then I want to experience them in that way. If He is there and I am not experiencing His presence in the way I am meant to, then I want for that to change. But I don't want to spout off that I see Him when I truly don't.
A second aspect that I have been thinking about is whether I have been changed by CL. At this stage, the best I can do is answer with a "not yet" or "I'm not sure, maybe". It's in this way that I understand Pazdziernik's comment about the movement being a "means to an end". Certainly not in a mechanistic way (and I don't read Pazdziernik to mean it in that way), because I do think there is a way in which a charism is "my means". For example, I had some (very limited) involvement with Pazdziernik's movement, Regnum Christi, when I was helping some LC seminarians start Compass, a Regnum Christi campus outreach I very briefly was involved with. There is no doubt a way in which CL is for me that Regnum Christi could never be. But I most certainly judge it by "he is if he changes". Has CL been a means by which Christ has changed me and led me on the way to sanctification? Here, I have little in the form of an answer. I know I desire the answer to be "yes", first and foremost to my changing, second, and less crucially, through CL. About as much as I can identify is that CL has aided me in a process that I know had already begun: my shift in focus from doctrine to the living of the Christian experience. I used to be very focused on doctrine. Knowing it. Talking about it. But I found that it was making me bitter. I would go to Mass and walk out of it not invigorated or joyful, but with a head full of criticisms about the various liturgical faults and the bad homily. At some point, I realized that not only was this not enough but that this wasn't a Christian life. Knowing the Church's teachings is important, but I had no need for a theologian's understanding of doctrine. I needed help in living. And I saw my attitude change when I embraced that realization. CL, with its almost maniacal emphasis on our needs and judging our experience, has certainly helped me with that.
What does this have to do with my experience of the Diaconia? I'm not sure. If it's only meaning was in being the catalyst for some of this evening's conversations I do think the experience would be redeemed. That said, I'm not convinced that is all it is. I'm not sure if Stephen was intending to suggest any dichotomy, but for me, I cannot separate "what's the status of the movement in America" from "I need[ing] something to "respond" to, something that provokes my response ..." As I said, this is a people, a subset and particular expression of the larger Church. If this Movement is meant for me then it means the people of the Movement are meant for me, too. And if that is true, I must know about them and how the charism is being lived where they are. There is a way in which CL can at times feel utilitarian in its focus on the personal. I think this isn't the way it is meant to be understood. For me, the relational is so much more vivid -- why to understand koinonia is so important to me -- and I need to know about you to be in relationship with you. And that relationship is for me too, of course. (I hope that sheds a sliver of more clarity on why I had the expectation I described below and why when it wasn't met it impacted me in the way it did.)
Many thanks for all the comments! I'm encouraged people even know this blog still exists!
Be "controversial" and you will get many comments, I suppose! Ha. Ha. I will try out your blog for a while. Please make some good, interesting and "controversial" posts.
Posted by: pazdziernik | Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 10:17 PM